Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

Lollipops23

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's a bit like the woman from Catholic Comment who was on the Late Late Show debate a while back who bemoaned that she couldn't state her opinions without being called homophobic. Only to have it rightly pointed out to her that no one had used that word up to that point.

It's just an extension of the "I'm not racist, BUT...." brigade. You can dress it up any which way you want it, but denying someone something as basic as the chance to marry the person they love purely because of their sexuality is homophobic.

Czarcasm

NuMarvel wrote: »

In fairness, the first person to call someone in the thread a bigot was someone on the opposing side and they were directing that at themselves.

Ah come on now, that was satire in fairness. We're talking about an issue that's bigger than this thread too, there's an overwhelming majority of approval here that I can't say has been my experience of the issue, no matter what people here are saying and no matter what poll says 73% of the Irish electorate are in favor of marriage equality.

It's a bit like the woman from Catholic Comment who was on the Late Late Show debate a while back who bemoaned that she couldn't state her opinions without being called homophobic. Only to have it rightly pointed out to her that no one had used that word up to that point.

At I thought you were talking about a Prime Time debate I watched a few weeks ago but I think that was actually on the issue of same sex adoption. I missed the Late Late Show (Jesus I'm surprised anyone watches that shìte any more tbh, it's been shìte ever since Gaybo left!), but both sides on the Prime Time debate gave an equally pìss poor showing of themselves that night, so I imagine the Late Late "debate" was just more of the same nobody listening to anybody while they were all too busy talking over each other and more concerned with petty point scoring than actually discussing anything like adults.

Trudiha

Czarcasm wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from Trudiha, but I think the approach is wrong. For me it's less important to label the behavior, and FAR, FAR more important to understand it, then at least you can work on the cause once you understand why they hold the views they do.

They don't SEE their own thinking as wrong, they see YOUR thinking as wrong, so first of all you have to see things the way they do, and that itself requires just as much tolerance and understanding as people who argue the rights of marriage equality expect to be shown to them.

You seem to assume that the bigots are coming from a place of well considered argument and logical conclusion and that if only we can pull the bones out of their erroneous (il)logical conclusions, they will see the error of their ways and throw their arms open to equality for all. I'm more with Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.

This isn't a logical argument, it's tribal. Some folks will never think that I'm their equal or that my relationship is 'real'. I have no desire to beg them for their kind consideration and tolerance. I just want the protection of the law.

How many supporters of marital equality here have actually read the current legislation and understand the 160 inequalities?

I have, have you?

Oh yes.

St.Spodo

It's not an issue I'm overly passionate about, but I was pleased to see the constitutional convention make a favourable recommendation. I hope the gays will soon be allowed marry.

Phill Ewinn

Lollipops23 wrote: »

And I'm asking you to defend your view on the matter. Welcome to a grown-up debate :rolleyes:

All I'm doing is probing to find out where you get your argument from, as so far you've failed to outline why you think the way you do.

Grown up debate now is it. Have you managed to forget what you just read? Two different relationships getting called two different things because they're different.

So whats your story ? Why do you imagine these two relationships are the same.

Dimithy

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Grown up debate now is it. Have you managed to forget what you just read? Two different relationships getting called two different things because they're different.

So whats your story ? Why do you imagine these two relationships are the same.

The participants may be different, but the relationship is essentially the same. 2 people who want to get married.

wolfpawnat

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

So whats your story ? Why do you imagine these two relationships are the same.

NO two relationships are ever the same, regardless of the dynamic of them. Every couple wants different things in this life. Children, cars, houses, holidays, hell even en suite bathrooms. Everyone is different. I have yet to look at two marriages and think them the same.

Czarcasm

Trudiha wrote: »

You seem to assume that the bigots are coming from a place of well considered argument and logical conclusion and that if only we can pull the bones out of their erroneous (il)logical conclusions, they will see the error of their ways and throw their arms open to equality for all.

Trudiha I wouldn't be that naive at all. I know that to YOU their point of view doesn't sound logical, but to them, it doesn't square too well the idea of same sex marriage (they're kinda missing the lack of equality part, as some supporters of same sex marriage even have done even in this thread alone in thinking that civil partnership gave same sex couples the same rights as a heterosexual married couple).

Most people who oppose the idea of same sex marriage, do so simply because it doesn't jig with their world view, the idea of marital equality doesn't even get a look in. This is because supporters of marital equality have put the issue of "gay marriage" in front of marital equality, if that makes sense? It goes back to what you were saying earlier about redefining the words marital rape, the concept of rape within a marriage- even to this day that's a hard one for some people to get their head around that it does happen.

In order to combat that, you redefine their concept of rape, you don't redefine their concept of marriage. The same with marital equality- you redefine their concept of marital equality, not their concept of marriage. There's a way to say this and I'm not sure I'm coming across right, but in speaking to people who have actually been opposed to marital equality I've been able to help them to understand the idea that it isn't just because a same sex couple are in love that they would like to see marriage introduced, but there are 160 other more practical reasons.

This isn't a logical argument, it's tribal. Some folks will never think that I'm their equal or that my relationship is 'real'. I have no desire to beg them for their kind consideration and tolerance. I just want the protection of the law.

It IS a logical argument, but it's not being argued logically, it's being as you said argued tribally, with both the supporters and the detractors of marital equality digging their heels in and refusing to budge an inch. The thing is though, that by default, the detractors of marital equality already HAVE all the power, they have the legislation as it stands on their side, so you're going to have to come down off the pedestal a small bit and approach them with a bit of humility and show them the same tolerance and respect you would like shown to you. As it stands at the moment, nobody is willing to listen to anybody and there is nothing being achieved. Shouting in people's faces only turns them off even entertaining you, and while they have all the power and the legislation as it stands, that doesn't leave the supporters of marital equality in a very good position to argue their case.

Phill Ewinn

Dimithy wrote: »

The participants may be different, but the relationship is essentially the same. 2 people who want to get married.

And there we have our answer. People who have little understanding of marriage pushing the change.

Dimithy

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And there we have our answer. People who have little understanding of marriage pushing the change.

Explain.

Lollipops23

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Grown up debate now is it. Have you managed to forget what you just read? Two different relationships getting called two different things because they're different.

So whats your story ? Why do you imagine these two relationships are the same.

Why is my gay aunty's relationship different to my parents' relationship? Other than the fact her's has lasted far longer, is stable and loving....whereas my folks split within 7 years of marrying.

I think she deserves to be able to marry her partner, but they have nothing to prove to anyone.

Why don't you feel they're entitled to marry?

Lollipops23

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And there we have our answer. People who have little understanding of marriage pushing the change.

You need to stop criticising posts without clarifying your standpoint. Simply saying "I doooon't liiiike it" doesn't suffice, I'm afraid.

Cody Pomeray

I'm all for it, being gay and in a civil partnership!

I'm sure it will happen, and we'll get an upgrade to regular human class. that'll be worth another party.

Lets just hope the Catholic wing of Fine Gael Lucinda Creighton doesn't want a sunset clause on our marriage.

missingtime

If heterosexual people can get married then homosexual people should be allowed married. That's it in a nutshell really.

Phill Ewinn

Lollipops23 wrote: »

You need to stop criticising posts without clarifying your standpoint. Simply saying "I doooon't liiiike it" doesn't suffice, I'm afraid.

Ah here. I'm hanging up my hat. "Different". Its a word. Does anyone here speak the lingo?

Temptamperu

Lollipops23 wrote: »

It's just an extension of the "I'm not racist, BUT...." brigade. You can dress it up any which way you want it, but denying someone something as basic as the chance to marry the person they love purely because of their sexuality is homophobic.

I hate that word. Homophobic people aren't afraid of gays, they are just c**ts.

wolfpawnat

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And there we have our answer. People who have little understanding of marriage pushing the change.

A marriage is merely a declaration of a supposedly lifelong commitment to another person.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Lets just hope the Catholic wing of Fine Gael Lucinda Creighton doesn't want a sunset clause on our marriage.

Am I the only one who thinks it sadly hilarious she was spokeswoman for equality at any stage ever, considering she really is the Oxford dictionary definition of a bigot!

wolfpawnat

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah here. I'm hanging up my hat. "Different". Its a word. Does anyone here speak the lingo?

Define how it is different. Apart from the irrelevant ONE factor of the gender of those involved.

Phill Ewinn

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A marriage is merely a declaration of a supposedly lifelong commitment to another person.


Am I the only one who thinks it sadly hilarious she was spokeswoman for equality at any stage ever, considering she really is the Oxford dictionary definition of a bigot!

Oh FFS. I don't like Creighton, but I say she'd kick your ass if you called her that to her face.

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh FFS. I don't like Creighton, but I say she'd kick your ass if you called her that to her face.

Don't bet your house on it. I did call her a bigot to her face and all she did was splutter and look hurt.

VinLieger

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah here. I'm hanging up my hat. "Different". Its a word. Does anyone here speak the lingo?

Just calling something different doesnt make it so, explain your reasoning for why marriage between a gay couple is different than a hetero couple without using sexual preference as an excuse as it has no relevance

wolfpawnat

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh FFS. I don't like Creighton, but I say she'd kick your ass if you called her that to her face.

I know her aunt personally, I called her that to the aunts face and I am not a keyboard warrior, I would say it to her face too. She has come out with homophobic and racist comments on her twitter page at a time she was supposed to be a equality spokesperson. It made national media!

Cody Pomeray

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I know her aunt personally, I called her that to the aunts face and I am not a keyboard warrior, I would say it to her face too. She has come out with homophobic and racist comments on her twitter page at a time she was supposed to be a equality spokesperson. It made national media!

I wouldn't have a problem expressing my concerns to Creighton. I used to send her a rake of emails about civil partnership when it was being enacted. She answered a few then it stopped. That's what I found a little distasteful, she was putting her personal opinions before her job - or that's how it seemed to me anyway.

It's actually easy to go on twitter or speak to the Iona Institute and broadcast her hurtful remarks where she doesn't have to face people. I hope she comes to mine and my partner's apartment next time she's canvassing so she can meet us and we tell her how happy we are and how we're not the wolf at the door of the Irish family.

paddy147

If a man wants to marry another man,then so be it.

Same if a woman wants to marry another woman.

Everyone should have equal rights and be treated equally too.

Trudiha

Czarcasm wrote: »

It IS a logical argument, but it's not being argued logically, it's being as you said argued tribally, with both the supporters and the detractors of marital equality digging their heels in and refusing to budge an inch. The thing is though, that by default, the detractors of marital equality already HAVE all the power, they have the legislation as it stands on their side, so you're going to have to come down off the pedestal a small bit and approach them with a bit of humility and show them the same tolerance and respect you would like shown to you. As it stands at the moment, nobody is willing to listen to anybody and there is nothing being achieved. Shouting in people's faces only turns them off even entertaining you, and while they have all the power and the legislation as it stands, that doesn't leave the supporters of marital equality in a very good position to argue their case.

That hasn't been my experience; when I came out, 25 years ago, I and all of the other gays I knew, were regular targets of homophobic abuse. If I held my gf's hand in the street, the best I could hope for were cat calls and on a bad day we'd be spat at. I haven't budged an inch, my sexuality is exactly the same now as it was then and I'm no less up for an augment about me being a regular tax-paying citizen now, than I was then. I have never begged for tolerance or made excuses about not being able to help myself. However, the rest of the world has changed, hardly anyone cares who I'm shagging any more and if they do, they keep it to themselves.

I totally accept your choice to beg for crumbs from the rich man's table but it's not a position I'm ever going to take up myself. If I have to try and convince someone that I'm a normal member of society, well able to take on all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood, then the argument is already lost. My right to equality is self-evident to any reasonable person.

wolfpawnat

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem expressing my concerns to Creighton. I used to send her a rake of emails about civil partnership when it was being enacted. She answered a few then it stopped. That's what I found a little distasteful, she was putting her personal opinions before her job - or that's how it seemed to me anyway.

It's actually easy to go on twitter or speak to the Iona Institute and broadcast her hurtful remarks where she doesn't have to face people. I hope she comes to mine and my partner's apartment next time she's canvassing so she can meet us and tell us how happy we are and how we're not the wolf at the door of the Irish family.

My uncle only came out 2 years ago, he is nearly 50! And he went from the coolest uncle ever to all his nieces and nephews to being......even cooler now because he is happier in himself!

When I was introduced to her aunt I was not told who she was to her at first, just "you know the politician Lucinda Creighton?" my response "Oh that bigoted joke of an equality spokesperson for the blueshirts?" Silence, "Eh Wolfpawnat, this is her aunt M" I look at the woman "Oh right, well your niece is a bigot and a joke of a spokesperson" and walked off.

I want him to have the same right to marry the man he loves as his sisters have to have married their husbands. My mother and father went by the wayside in no time, the worst that can happen is he do the same! I doubt it though. I would pay money to be in the nearby vicinity the day she arrive to your door

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A marriage is merely a declaration of a supposedly lifelong commitment to another person.


Am I the only one who thinks it sadly hilarious she was spokeswoman for equality at any stage ever, considering she really is the Oxford dictionary definition of a bigot!

She is our minister for the EU and has said we should ignore the EU Human Rights Courts recommendations on legislating for abortion.

Phill Ewinn

VinLieger wrote: »

Just calling something different doesnt make it so, explain your reasoning for why marriage between a gay couple is different than a hetero couple without using sexual preference as an excuse as it has no relevance

Word jumble. Great. Once logic is gone thats the response we're left with.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

She is our minister for the EU and has said we should ignore the EU Human Rights Courts recommendations on legislating for abortion.

Yes I know she is now, but before FG got into government, she was spokesperson for equality.

peekachoo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Word jumble. Great. Once logic is gone thats the response we're left with.

you'd help us understand your argument a lot more if you...you know...had one?